Irvine City News editorial staff ​

By Irvine City News Editor

By ​Irvine City News editorial staff

It’s officially the summer of 2017, and significant progress is being made toward fulfilling the promise made to the citizens of Irvine and Orange County: that a Great Park would rise on the site of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro.

The first 53 acres of the Sports Park opens August 5, with subsequent phases to follow. The FivePoint Amphitheatre debuts later this summer, and for three seasons will bridge the live music gap between Irvine Meadows closing and a permanent amphitheater being approved and built at the Great Park.

The groundbreaking for the $100 million Great Park Ice and Sports Complex was earlier this year, and work on what promises to be an incredible facility is underway.

And, most importantly, a final resting site for Orange County veterans was approved for the strawberry fields site, a beautiful piece of land that was once part of the MCAS El Toro base, and will undoubtedly be added to be within the official boundaries of the Great Park in the future.

Much still remains to be done, certainly. Most significantly a plan for the critical Cultural Terrace. But after an era of divisiveness and criticism about what’s not at the Great Park, let’s take time this summer to celebrate what is, and what’s soon to come.
​
Many of us have learned in life that great things take time. At specific moments a significant project may seem to be moving slowly. Progress may seem glacial, or nonexistent.

But later, we realize that in the grand scheme, the results were worth the wait.

Let’s take a quick review of the Great Park timeline, minus the controversies. The Marine Corps Air Station El Toro closed in 1999. Lennar bought 3,718 acres of the former El base in 2005 for $649.5 million. Some 200 acres were developed, including existing sports fields, the Palm Court gallery and the Great Park Balloon, Great Park Visitors Center, the carousel, playground, etc.

Over the next several years, significant funds were spent on design documents, pricey PR contracts, and other expenditures. Controversy ensued, the economy tanked, state redevelopment funds were eliminated, city elections were held.

In 2013, the Irvine City Council reached an agreement with FivePoint to develop 688 acres of the Great Park.
The groundbreaking of the 688 acres took place a year later during the “Runways to Greenways” event in 2014. Much of the initial work involved demolition of runways, buildings and other remnants of the base on the 688 acres, and the construction of underground infrastructure.

Now, this summer we’ll see the first fruit of the labor of the past three years, when the first phase of the Sports Park opens to the public.

One could argue (and since this is a space for opinion, we will) that more progress has been made on the Great Park in the past three years than in the decade prior to that.

A decade or two from now, when the Orange County Great Park is widely recognized as one of the most important urban parks in the country, few will recall the details we now obsess over.

Our proof? Studying the other great urban parks in our country. Most had their share of controversy, and took much longer to create than many might think: far longer than the Orange County Great Park.

The 3,000 acres that would become L.A.’s Griffith Park was donated to the city of Los Angeles in 1896. The city didn’t annex the land until 1910, the Greek Theater opened in 1929, the Griffith Observatory in 1935, the L.A. Zoo in 1966 and the Autry Museum of the American West in 1989.

The land for NYC’s Central Park was purchased in 1853. It took until 1873 for the original parkland to be substantially completed, but that was a much different place than the one we know today. Children weren’t allowed on the grass. Sheep grazed there instead. The Metropolitan Museum of Art opened at its Central Park location in 1880.

Robert Moses added 19 playgrounds and 12 ball fields to Central Park in 1934, after years of neglect had left the park in disrepair. Tavern on the Green also opened in 1934, as did The Conservatory Garden. The Great Lawn was added at the site of a former reservoir in 1936. One ice rink opened in 1949, the second in 1966. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum across from Central Park opened in 1959.

San Diego’s Balboa Park began when 1,400 acres of land for a city park was set aside in 1868. It took until the 1915-16 Panama-California Exposition for most of the architecture the park is known for to be built, and for it to be renamed Balboa Park. The San Diego Zoo was established in 1916. What would become the San Diego Museum of Art opened at the park in 1926, and expanded in 1966. The San Diego Natural History Museum opened in 1933, the Old Globe Theatre debuted in 1935, as did the buildings around the Pan American Plaza. The new Veterans Memorial Garden was dedicated in 2005.

What do all those dates mean? That great parks take time. One could argue they’re never really finished, as subsequent generations make changes, improvements and add attractions.

Which is not meant as cover for our city council and civic stakeholders to take a century to complete the Great Park. But let’s take a moment to celebrate that something special is happening at our Great Park this summer.
We suggest Irvine citizenry get outside this season to see that progress for yourself. Visit the first phase of the Sports Park on opening day or thereafter, kick a ball around with your kids or grandkids, watch or play beach volleyball on beautiful sand courts, or pick up your tennis racquet and have a game at the new Great Park Courts.
​
The bright future of Irvine is dawning now, all around us, so let’s get outside and enjoy it.

By ​Irvine City News editorial staff

The case for creating the Southern California Veterans Cemetery at the alternate site where the strawberry fields now grow near the 5 and 405 freeways continues to build. State leadership is sending signals that the alternate site is the best option for Irvine. In a letter submitted recently, Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva advised the council to think about spending the extra millions needed to keep the cemetery at the original ARDA site near Portola High School: “The decision is yours to make as to whether you will continue to expend up to $40,000,000 as your share or redirect those funds to other pressing needs in Irvine.”

Gov. Jerry Brown showed a preference for placing the Southern California Veterans Cemetery on land offered by FivePoint after his recent tour of both sites. “Obviously, I like (the) strawberry patch — ‘Strawberry Fields.’ Remember that song?” Brown said, as reported by voiceofoc.org.

The state has now articulated a position—and mounting evidence points to—the strawberry fields as the most favorable site when considering the cost, the location and the ability to start construction.

That’s not surprising to Irvine City News, because Brown and Quirk-Silva have now done what everyone should do who is interested in the issue: visited both sites for themselves.

Seeing is believing, as is so often said. We believe that objective observers who visit both sites will conclude that the alternate site next to the freeways where millions will view it is the proper place to honor veterans and their service to the country. They should not be tucked away in a corner of the city, where few but their relatives and friends will see their graves. Let’s not put veterans out of site and out of mind. Rather, let’s give them a place of prominence and honor, visible to all who visit our city.

In our last issue we published photographs of both sites. But getting a look in person is always a better option. When Gov. Brown visited our city, he referenced the Beatles song “Strawberry Fields Forever.” One lyric in that song rings true: “Living is easy with eyes closed; Misunderstanding all you see.”

By seeing, really seeing the two options, perhaps misunderstandings about the virtues of each can be reduced. The ARDA site is closed to the public, but one can get a look at it from Irvine Blvd. near Portola High School, from the end of Chinon, the road right next to the high school, and from Bosque, the road that runs from Irvine Blvd. through the Great Park Neighborhoods.

For a bird’s eye view, we imagine the view from the Great Park Balloon would do well. Or simpler still, just pull up Google Maps, the satellite view, find Portola High School, and look up and to the left.

The alternate site is easier to see. Drive along Alton Pkwy., between Barranca and Technology Dr., or take the 405 north from the 5 at the El Toro Y. For the best view, drive to the end of Rockfield Blvd., just off of Bake. It dead-ends right into the fields. Walk up the berm (without actually trespassing, of course), and see the flat, open expanse of green fields for yourself.

Then ask yourself, all other things being equal, wouldn’t this be a better site to honor veterans?

Of course, all things aren’t equal. We laid out the facts about the two sites in our May issue. Here’s what we said in this space about the choice to be made by the city council, and the debate about the issue:

“After hearing the debate and weighing the options, Irvine City News strongly believes there is only one course of action: Accept FivePoint’s offer and move the cemetery from the ARDA site to the highly visible alternate site next to the 5 Freeway.

“This option will save the taxpayers millions of dollars, speed construction and delivery of the cemetery’s first phase, and remove concerns nearby residents and school officials have about proximity to the ARDA site.”

One of the most important things to come out of Gov. Brown’s visit is the very clear message that Irvine will be home to a veterans cemetery, at one site or the other. So hopefully any innuendo about the alternate site being part of some grand plan to eliminate a veterans cemetery from the city can be put to rest.

When the original ARDA site was the only option, that was the choice all supported. If city council chooses the original site, we’ll support that choice and join all in honoring veterans there. There will be a veterans cemetery in Irvine. We still think the alternate site is the obvious and best choice for its location.

The May 9 hearing that concluded the debate over Concordia University was a model of conciliation and consensus building almost completely lacking in ad hominem attacks and innuendo.
​
It’s likely the veterans cemetery discussion will be less polite. But it doesn’t have to be. Let’s all do our best at the June 27 city council meeting (when the cemetery decision is expected to be made) to treat those on all sides of the issue with respect, and in so doing bring some decorum and reverence to the issue that’s so important to veterans and citizens alike.

​Editor's Note: ​Mayor Don Wagner and Councilmember Melissa Fox have called for a special meeting to vote on the cemetery location after learning that the state has allocated $10 million less than expected for the construction of the veterans cemetery in Irvine. The city council will vote on the site for the new cemetery on June 6 at 4 p.m.

By Jacob Levy, editor and publisher

Everyone in Irvine is committed to building a much-needed and infinitely deserved veterans cemetery within the boundaries of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. Or so it seems (we’ll get to that caveat later).

We at Irvine City News are but one voice among a multitude asking that those who serve and protect our nation and our freedoms, now and in the past, benefit from the highest honors a grateful nation can bestow upon them. The least of these, it seems to us, is being buried close to home. Thankfully, Irvine seems to be unified on this point.

However, the location of that cemetery is the center of a growing debate. Three years ago the city council voted to approve what is known as the ARDA site, a property with 77 structures, concrete, asphalt and underground utilities that will need to be demolished and the land remediated at a cost of $30 million.

An alternate site was proposed a year ago, close to the 5 Freeway, and was offered by FivePoint. That site has nothing on it but strawberries. The then-city council refused to approve (or even vote on) a proposal from Christina Shea to study the offer from FivePoint.

A year later, the current council voted 3-2 to proceed on two tracks toward the goal of a veterans cemetery within the city. The majority (Mayor Don Wagner, Councilmember Melissa Fox and Councilmember Christina Shea) agreed to both consider FivePoint’s alternate site proposal while also committing $38 million of the estimated $77-$80 million necessary to build the veterans cemetery at the ARDA site, contingent on the state of California also contributing $38 million to that site.

At the April city council meeting, dozens of veterans came to the dais to speak to the council. Many wore their uniforms, and spoke movingly of their service during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and other conflicts.

They were all in favor of the city locating their final resting spot at a Veterans Cemetery in Irvine. Many spoke in favor of the alternate site near the freeway. Others preferred sticking with the ARDA site near Portola High School.
​
Some who spoke at the hearing and were opposed to studying the alternate site may have been influenced by a mass email sent out that called the alternate site proposal a “scheme” and alleged that any study of the FivePoint proposal would “effectively kill our Veterans Cemetery.”

Luckily, the majority of the city council and many, if not most, of the veterans at the hearing saw through these divisive statements.

What does anyone have to lose by exercising due diligence in vetting FivePoint’s offer?

If it indeed will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, and won’t significantly impact the timeline for first burials at a new veterans cemetery, than there can be no real reason to oppose making the analysis.

Comparing the two sites pros and cons makes sense, especially when the future and final home of our country’s and county’s veterans is at stake. So Irvine City News did just that.

So why, then, were some at the hearing so adamant in opposing a fair and balanced analysis of the FivePoint offer, while moving forward with authorizing expenditures for the ARDA site? No doubt some believe that considering another, possibly much better, cemetery site would set back the progress made on the ARDA site.

But we’re worried that others wish to re-fight the political battles of the past rather than honor the heroes among us now. For those folks, committing to the best location for a veterans cemetery seems less important than the political scores they keep.

After hearing the debate and weighing the options, Irvine City News strongly believes there is only one course of action: Accept FivePoint’s offer and move the cemetery from the ARDA site to the highly visible alternate site next to the 5 Freeway.

If approved by the council, this option will save the taxpayers millions of dollars, speed construction and delivery of the cemetery’s first phase faster and remove concerns nearby residents and school officials have about the proximity to the ARDA site.

That’s our opinion, and it’s one shared by a significant number of veterans.

Gov. Jerry Brown is said to be coming to Irvine in May to visit the ARDA cemetery site, and hopefully the alternate site, too.

We urge all Irvine residents to look at the images of the two sites, study the maps. We believe you will agree with us that the alternative site is the superior location for the long overdue Veterans cemetery in Irvine.

By Irvine City News staff

For years, prior to founding Irvine City News, we decried a plague of factionalism that descended upon our city’s politics. In recent issues, we’ve shared our hope things are improving. Debates from the past are receding further into our civic history. Irvine must move forward. To do so, city leaders must assess issues on their merits.
​
Sports terms are often used as metaphors in talk of politics. Some in politics seem keen to score a “win” for his or her team, or to simply deny one to the other side. But sport is entertainment. Politics is real-life. In politics, there is often discord because it is an arena for the resolution of disagreements. Politics should not be a vehicle for personal gratification. Our livelihoods, culture and civic institutions are directly and indirectly impacted by the form and content of the resolved disagreements.

We were greatly encouraged by the 5-0 Irvine City Council vote approving the construction of an amphitheater between the Irvine Transportation Center and the Orange County Great Park as proposed jointly by Live Nation and FivePoint. In fact, not one dissenting voice was raised during the public comment prior to the vote. A diverse cross-section of the community gathered to voice their support for live music in Irvine. The approved venue is only an interim step toward a permanent replacement for Irvine Meadows, but the unanimity of the city council vote reflected well the sense of the people of Irvine. This was progress and momentum. Our politics worked.

We think the interim amphitheater will provide material and symbolic benefit to the people of Irvine. Furthermore, consider the following: the Orange County Great Park is central to the future of Irvine; traffic congestion is frequently referenced by Irvine’s citizens amongst quality-of-life concerns; the “green” and open-spaces of Irvine are frequently referenced by Irvine’s citizens as integral to Irvine’s appeal.

Cities retain and attract citizens, or they don’t. The prospects for a city that doesn’t retain and attract citizens tend, at best, toward managed decline and its host of civic discomforts. The many children raised here that head off to university never to return are a cause for concern. Cities such as Austin, San Francisco and Portland may be “cooler” than Irvine, especially for a certain age range or lifestyle. But, overall, are those cities better than Irvine for the full spectrum of age ranges and lifestyles? This is a question we, and our leaders, must ask and answer, again and again, as a prompt to our continued improvement.

Many studies of appealing city amenities relate the value to citizens of easy commutes by a variety of methods, natural viewscapes, and efficient life logistics. We can imagine Irvine’s train station as a junction of the next iteration of the vibrant Irvine Village, with restaurants, retail areas, innovative housing options, creative commercial spaces, cultural and civic amenities and the Great Park steps, pedals and smartphone touches away. Not only can we imagine it, but we think we must, as a city, will and construct it into reality, lest we passively let what we have now simply rust away.

Consensus building, faction healing and faction prevention will be prized during this evolution of parts of our city. For some, long-held beliefs will become untenable in the face of a changing world. That means vision and leadership will be in high-demand and creative peacemakers in high esteem. Housing policy makes for a good case study of these dynamics.

Coastal California lacks supply to meet the demand for housing. This is a classic market dynamic with a textbook answer. We can’t reactively shudder at supplying the market with the denser, more urban home style that it is demanding. We need housing that suits suburban families and city-loving households, that helps us as a community protect and save at-risk children, that helps seniors age in place, veterans reap honor for their service and helps emigrants and immigrants integrate into our community. Yet, the position staked by those that claim the mantle of Progressivism apparently opposes actual houses for actual people. Writing for the Los Angeles Times recently, in an article titled, “California won’t meet its climate change goals without a lot more housing density in its cities,” Liam Dillon illustrates the conundrum:

“‘You can’t be pro-environment and anti-housing,’ said Marlon Boarnet, chair of the Department of Urban Planning at USC... ‘You can’t be anti-sprawl and anti-housing. This is something that has not been very well understood’… State climate officials don’t assume that everyone will spend less time on the road, but they’re planning for a significant percentage of Californians to do so — and for many to abandon cars altogether. For that to happen, more people will have to live near where they work or shop, which means more housing in urban neighborhoods and other job centers. On top of that, the state’s population is expected to grow by 4.5 million people by 2030.”

Irvine is already grappling with the same dynamics. In the years to come, Irvine will only grapple with them more constantly. We still expect that issues crucial to the future of Irvine will be vigorously debated and studied. We’re not predicting long streaks of 5-0 votes. Let’s listen to each other, be willing to examine our positions for consistency with what’s best for the most of us today and tomorrow, and, when thinking of politics as a sport, be sure to point out that we are all on the same team.

By Jacob Levy, editor and publisher

By Jacob Levy, editor and publisher

Recently we drove the length of Sand Canyon Avenue from Portola Parkway to the 405. It was moderate evening traffic, no rain or anything unusual. We were moving with traffic, not faster or slower. And, you guessed it: we hit every red light on the route, except one. We were stopped at every major intersection, of course, waiting long after the cross traffic had passed. We were also red-lighted for single vehicles emerging from office parking lots, shopping centers and side streets, triggering an immediate signal change resulting in multiple vehicles on the main road to idle so one driver could proceed without pause and unimpeded.

So yes, we feel your pain, Irvine. We’re all frustrated by traffic, and happy to see our new city council addressing the issue at the first council sessions of the year. But we’re also realists. Traffic can be improved, certainly. But it’s not going away.
​
We remember a time not so long ago when traffic was light. It was during the recession and its aftermath when there was double-digit unemployment, zero economic growth and all development had ground to a halt, impacting businesses throughout the city, state and nation. Friends and family lost their homes, and seemingly everyone lost equity, investments, income and retirement security. It was a mess.

Today, Orange County enjoys an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent. Home values are up, as is employment in construction and related trades.

People are driving to jobs in Irvine, and throughout Southern California. The city of Irvine is the most fiscally fit in the nation, as indicated elsewhere in this issue.

Which doesn’t make sitting at the signal at Culver and Alton any more pleasant, and doesn’t reduce the urgency of working toward fixes for traffic congestion.

Rather, this is a request for a reality check. Traffic is annoying, certainly. But some traffic issues are related to attributes of Irvine we all love, and traffic is much, much worse elsewhere.

That’s counterintuitive to what we experience on the road each day, but those concepts are confirmed by data, experience and observation.

What follows are a few examples, we’ll explore more in future issues, along with continuing to press for improvement in the traffic congestion we all experience.

One of the reasons our main roadways like Jamboree, Culver, Alton, Irvine and Jeffrey are impacted by traffic so noticeably is because “the city’s master plan roadway system is designed to minimize traffic through residential areas by focusing traffic volumes to major roadway arterials traversing the city,” as the city’s traffic management study explains.

For those of us who use Waze or other way-finding apps, this is obvious. When driving through neighboring cities, we’ll find ourselves driving through residential neighborhoods we’d never discover on our own, much to the chagrin of the locals who suffer sudden traffic along their streets.

But not in Irvine.

Oh, sure, we have a few secret routes. But generally we’re directed along the same arterials and freeways everyone else takes.

That’s because the streetscapes of Irvine’s villages are designed not as grids, but in the labyrinthine way we’ve all come to love, with only one or maybe two ways in, few right angles, and creative use of cul-de-sacs throughout. So there are few shortcuts available. Once we turn into our section of the village, the traffic dissipates quickly.

The traffic management study by Albert Grover and Associates is full of such gems. We recommend everyone study it closely. A few other pertinent points to highlight include: “The city’s geography contributes to its peak-period traffic congestion. The hills to the north and south of the city combined with John Wayne Airport to the west result in few continuous arterial roadways into and out of the city. These geographic limitations to mobility tend to concentrate traffic flow on a few freeways and key arterial roadways, resulting in high traffic volumes and intersection congestion into and out of the city.”

We’d also highlight the city’s adjacency to Laguna Canyon, the Back Bay, open space, wilderness parks, and UC Irvine as wonderful amenities that add significantly to the quality of life in Irvine. They also limit ingress to and engress from the city, with the result being busier roadways.

Would you be willing to swap open space for a few more roads and freeways? Neither would we.
An additional truth in the consultant’s study is this:

“Traffic peaks for a much shorter duration in Irvine than in other communities, which typically face congested corridors for much longer time periods.”

So yes, traffic is vexing. But at least we’re braving it to return to our homes in Irvine, and not spending hours in it to go a few miles in L.A.

By Jacob Levy, editor and publisher

It’s January, the time of year when we all resolve to do better than the year before. Sometimes we make life-altering agreements with ourselves in the first weeks or months of a new year, exercise resolve and keep our resolutions. Just as often (perhaps more), we enter the year with the best of intentions, only to backslide later.
Which is why we urge the city of Irvine city council, staff, commissions, committees and all involved in positions of influence, public and private, to make one resolution for the New Year: make concrete decisions and take significant and tangible steps to move the Cultural Terrace segment of the Orange County Great Park forward.

Anyone who has made resolutions knows what the enemies are to keeping them: They include dueling issues of never getting started (procrastination) and trying to do too much at once.

It’s the same with our community-wide commitment to make progress at the Great Park.

Procrastination is always a fine way to push a task off into the future, or leave it to someone else to worry about. That’s what previous city councils have done, even if it wasn’t their intention.

A 254-page feasibility study finished Dec. 10, 2010 at a cost of $230,000 said that the Cultural Terrace would be “the social, cultural, artistic and educational core of the Orange County Great Park.” Included in that study was an amphitheater, library, performing arts center, arts and culture center, life science center and the Museum of Heritage and Aviation – some of which had their own individual feasibility studies.

Fast-forward to Oct. 2015, and an OC Register story summarizes all the progress made in planning the Cultural Terrace over half a decade: “When city council members visualize the Great Park’s future Cultural Terrace, they picture museums, a library, an amphitheater and a lake.”

It sounds as if the basic outline of what should be in the Cultural Terrace hasn’t changed that much. But now there are suggestions that additional studies are necessary.

Wasting months and money on more studies and surveys to see what we really, really want in the Cultural Terrace isn’t just procrastination at this point, it’s dereliction of civic duty.

Trying to do too much at once via multiple unrealistic resolutions is just as deadly as never getting started on a single one. That’s what has been happening as we try to plan every element at the Cultural Terrace at once: by trying to figure out everything we want there, nothing much has been getting done.  So let’s start with the easy ones first, and move forward.

Building a live music amphitheater on the Cultural Terrace has been part of the plan pretty much since day one.

A new amphitheater was the subject of a feasibility study finished in Dec. 12, 2010. Funded in part by Live Nation, the concert promoter and venue owner, the study stated that, “The Amphitheater will support the Great Park’s role as a hub for human well-being; encourage social interaction and public engagement; promote diversity; and bring people together through shared experiences in public spaces.”

The final season at Irvine Meadows solidified the wide demand throughout Southern California for a new live music venue. It also inspired the idea for an interim facility while the permanent one is being built on the Cultural Terrace: FivePoint and Live Nation have offered to build a 12,000-seat outdoor amphitheater adjacent to the Orange County Great Park in time for the 2017 summer music season. FivePoint would provide the land, while Live Nation will design, construct and operate the facility and adjacent parking.

Let’s put procrastination in the past. The new mayor and city council can prove that their commitment to collegiality and professionalism in working together, especially when it comes to progress at the Orange County Great Park, wasn’t just election-year rhetoric. The first step is obvious: move forward on the amphitheater. We have additional opinions of the matter of the Cultural Terrace, of course, including who should be put in charge of building it. But we’ll get to that in future issues.

By Jacob Levy, editor and publisher

Finally, the long Irvine election is over. It seems like years ago that the first Gang Chen for Mayor sign appeared, when really it was only several months before it was legal to put such signs up. Perhaps one of the main takeaways from the 2016 election is that election signs annoy Irvine voters. Anything Chen gained in early name recognition from all the premature signage, he likely lost later as the signs from all the candidates proliferated.

The final straw for the Gang show may have been the dueling anti-Wagner and anti-Gaido signs, which many felt he was behind.

We’d love to see an analysis of votes received vs. number of signs put up and dollars spent on them. It seems as if it might be an inverse relationship. Or is it our imagination that the winners (Wagner, Shea and Fox) had fewer signs per candidate than the average of each one not elected?

Perhaps it was just that there were so many candidates. Certainly it would be unconstitutional and indeed un-American to suggest a cap on the number of candidates that can run in an election, but there does seem to be a point of diminishing return.

In the city council race, Christina Shea won and received the most votes with 26,375 votes, and Melissa Fox will join the incumbent Shea on the city council after receiving 22,503 votes. Third place went to Anthony Kuo with 19,978 votes, followed by Farrah Khan with 14,992.

It seems important to note that the final seven candidates received a combined total of almost 45,000 votes, almost as many as the two winners received. So while there are two clear winners in the city council election, it can’t be said that they have an overwhelming mandate from the voters, as many more voted for those who were not elected than those who were.

Still, we hope all Irvine residents get behind this city council. We urge the council to not fall into an entrenched voting split, whether based on party, pervious positions, or any other differentiator. Irvine deserves a professional, passionate and persuasive city council.

There are many issues facing the city, but the way forward is firmly footed on a foundation of civic excellence. We’d love to be impressed and inspired by this city council, just as much as we are by our city.

We believe it’s within this council’s power to create a plan to finish the Orange County Great Park by moving forward on the last remaining piece of the puzzle: the Cultural Terrace. This council can move beyond the rhetoric revolving around a place to honor the nation’s veterans in a cemetery on the hallowed grounds of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, the last American soil so many saw. We think this council can balance economic vitality and sustained, smart growth with a renewed focus on the quality of life in the community. We believe that traffic, while a fact of life in any vital cosmopolitan community, can be mitigated. We’d like to see some innovative solutions suggested to allow fewer auto trips per capita, whether it’s 21st century transit, enhanced pedestrian and cycling solutions, driverless car and bus services, or whatever the best minds in the world see coming next.

We’ll be decidedly disappointed if this council split 3-2 on the vital issues facing the city. We hope for collegiality, respectful debate, thought leadership and consensus where possible.

We hope and expect to see our esteemed leaders reach and exceed the highest standards. Irvine deserves that, and much more.
​
Let’s aim high, Irvine. It’s about time we worked together for the future of all of our families.